Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

what do you think?

I think not...
The tian-lu dragon looks like a cross between a song dynasty figural dragon carving and a Zhou/warring states style dragon!!! (but carved in the round)
Is really not to hard to see yourself that these are fake, they have no resemblance to any stylisic period at all... Do yourself a favour, a friend of mine has a book out and it should be the jade bible for all new collectors "Jessica Rawson-- Chinese jade from the neolithic to the Qing" you will soon see there are attributes of jades from different periods that make dating easier... Bear in mind the examples you showed are fakes for the novice, there are also fakes out there that are created to fool long term collectors, so visit as many museum collections as you can and really study the jades there, the way the piece was carved, its material and the spirit of the carving!!! But certainly stop buying jades for now and get reading... 99.99999999% of antique jades out there are not antique, many are not even jade..

First picture.. not Jade, the other ones, freshly scratched engravings.
Ernest

The first picture, is a ancient jade display in NYC, 'Metropolitan Museum of Art'. In the Asian collection section right behind the glass, opposition to the huge Buddha painted wall.

Maybe, according to you, it is real, but not according to that photo !!!
Ernest

When an item is posted to this forum the assumption
is that it is owned by the one posting it.
If you owned the item pictured it would
have to be considered against known examples.
The dark inclusions in this stone have a look
that is common to serpentine[a softer stone].
The style of this creature has been used for
inspiration by carvers and forgers. Where is
the second image from?, yours or another Gotcha!

Picture taken from Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY.

http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/60006654
Looks like someone likes to manipulate photos.
The link is for the real object in the Metropolitan Museum.
Nice try.

People like to use excuse for everything; accept the fact you can't distinguish the difference in stones. Even If I use the picture from the Museum HP, you'll still not be able to distinguish. The difference is, the pics in the museum site have extra lighting effect, whereas the picture I took is taken under natural circumstance. If that's what you called manipulate, let it be to you.

Good work, Kevin !!!
Ernest

Michael , Michael... Photoshopping tat onto museum pictures is gonna fool no-one....Try reading about antique jades

I don't think Michael "manipulated" anything. He is right in exposing the fact that none of the people who set themselves up as experts here knew that piece was from the Met. A few shades of brightness doesn't change the form (or the Met's display case lining!).

Whenever people's ignorance on a subject like this is exposed they always claim they've been tricked. "Gotcha" is becoming as much of an excuse or evasion from culpability among internet know-it-alls as "conspiracy theory" is for political thugs.

The fact that people should be aware of here is that only geologists with experience of nephrite jade can tell with any degree of certainty what alterations on stone mean. Don't rely on the usual voices here who comment on jade; it's simply not the place for accurate information. It is a good place for pottery and other media but the jade information here is simply some cobbed together second and third hand received ideas such as if a form hasn't been published then it isn't valid. This sort of cramped view excludes the possibility of any new discovery or the fact that many things are looted without ever being seen by establishment figures,let alone published!

The best you can expect to read here is: "scratch test" and "never seen this before in books."

Do I have to point out that the real pic from the Met link I posted is nothing like your knotted dragon Michael ? Your knotted dragon is not a pendant. And apparently it was cleaning day at the museum when you were there because the objects on either side of your " Knotted dragon " are missing. On top of that it appears as if the curators at your Met can't count because the labels go from 11 to 13. What happened to 12 ? Below I have posted the real knotted dragon from the Met.

I tried to keep my mouth shut but may be I missed something here, I did search for the piece with the same title as that was placed in this thread, and the only piece I could find was the same one shown at the link that was posted here by Kevin. So I really have no idea what the heck jglad's message here tried to say because the piece that was posted by this Michael guy is totally different than that of the one I saw in Kevin's link and the one I saw during my searches. If I am correct, then trying to post a "fake" piece as a museum piece is not only dishonest but despicable and such a person has no business whatsoever in collecting jades. If I did miss something here, I apologize in advance but judging from previous messages posted by this Michael and jgald, while I do understand some of their frustrations but I believe it may be better off for them to seek another hobby other than collecting jade. I have been collecting coins for over 30 years and there are still a lots I do not know. I am still learning from others who know more than me. To collect jades will take a life time, some time even several generations......

I also searched the Met's collection, looking through each of the 33 pages, of some 2000 jade objects and didn't see Michael's dragon, but I could have missed it. Are sure this is the Met's collection Michael?

Kevin Martin implies that Michael fabricated the entire image, even the placards with the descriptions. Number twelve could be below eleven, and out of the frame; often museum placards are placed like that. It is also a presumption that the pieces next to the dragon would have to be in the frame; pieces are temporarily removed for several reasons anyway. I don't think these accusations have any merit at all and are proclaimed in the same "gotcha" tone that Michael has been accused of.

The knotted dragon that Kevin shows is a very unique piece, whereas the piece Michael shows is a more common form; it wouldn't be called a knotted dragon; it is a bixie dragon or simply a dragon. The form is prevalent from the Zhou to the Ching.

Adam's criticism's of the form are too subjective to be comprehensible. I'm sure they mean something to him but they don't go beyond his own eccentric views. The absolute tone of the criticism renders them meaningless and pompous.

I think showing museum pieces without identifying them as such is valid, in that it tends to knock know-it-alls down to size and shows that pictures can be deceiving.

The items doesn't always have to display rested on the ground. Why don't you go over to MET in NYC, when you have the chance and see the item for yourself. Tell them the item is a fake and MET may even present you with a SMART certificate or reward.

A chance to take fame. If anyone wish to point out the numbering error or fake to Met(NYC). This Michael is willingly to give full direction to that SUPER investor or that collector of locating the piece in MET I posted.

If Michael did actually replace the piece in the Met display case through photoshop then it is a foolish thing to do that will cause him to be ignored. I would have liked to see better pictures of his jades, rather than have to deal with trying to defend him, or being confused at what is happening due to stupid pranks.

Not every items in MET are put on MET website. Maybe I should have use the one in your posted pic instead, to make it easier to identify.

I didn't realize this was a shell game. Michael and jglad, are you roommates ?
Time to vacate this rabbit hole.
Exit, stage right.

My apologies Michael, I've found the link. I think you've made your point.

URL Title :E.Zhou Dragon/Met

Good try, but too late. If you do not know the difference between a pendant and the piece that was posted by you (not a pendant) but was labeled as such, that means either the MET is totally clueless or?

My advice for other members is to totally ignore all of your future posts in this forum.

http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/60012935?rpp=20&pg=3&od=on&ft=*&what=Jade&pos=52

Follow the link I have provided above; it will take you to the dragon Michael photographed. The link is to the METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART IN NEW YORK CITY. The link has not been photoshopped, fabricated, or manipulated, although I'm sure that you'll think it has.

Michael has proven that none of us knew fro certain that the dragon he photographed was on display in the Met. I admit it, perhaps the others could too. Rather than actually checking, it was easier to accuse him of manipulating the picture--very lazy and very shabby. I don't think it's Michael who should be ignored here, next time someone asks for jade advice and the usual suspects chime in.

For good measure, here's the link to the search results page. Scroll down a bit and you'll see the now famous dragon.

I should say that I am not the webmaster or web designer for the Met; nor am I the IT guy. I am not the curator of Asian Art, or the director of the Museum, nor am I a master hacker.

I hope I have managed to convince you that I have not manipulated this page, or the entire Met web site that the page is connected to.

At the very least,I(we?)have learned that the Met has another dragon besides the knotted one. I believe they may also have a few more, but they may be more than we can handle at this time.

URL Title :Met Search Results Page: E.Zhou Dragon

Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |